Is it possible that I am personally distraught with my inability to surmount an impossible task? A task of a GOAT list all agree upon, using all possible stats? Maybe it is my own perfectionist nature, where, it was bugging me that my knowledge of the game had some gaps, a pro slam here, who was #1 pre 1973 and for how long and when and who was #1 this week or that?

It is eating me up that I cannot solve this puzzle, please, I would like MTF to propose their own lists with merits and stats, and I will adjust accordingly.

Calm down Johnny. Most people here just guess your previous list was better than this one. It had strongest arguments than the new list. Just this.

Roddick, about 30 spots too low, should be right around Stan Smith and Ashe. He's better than JCF, that's for sure.

__________________
Federer - Emperor of the Slams, King of Hard, Lord of the Australian Open, Lord of Wimbledon.

Sunset of AgeShe's MY Miss MTFSweet, Sassy, Sophisticated

"Love has nothing to do with what you're expecting to get, only what you're expecting to give - which is everything. What you receive in return varies, but that really has no connection with why you give. You give because you love and cannot help giving." - K. Hepburn.

In reality, there is NO ONE GOAT! There is, IMO, a group of super elite players throughout tennis history. The obvious Super Elites are in no particular order: Laver, Rosewall, Federer, Gonzalez, and Sampras. Tier 2: Nadal, Borg, Tilden Perry,Cochet, Lacoste, Connors, McEnroe and Agassi. Tier 3: Edberg, Becker, Djokovic and Hoad. I rank Cochet and Lacoste above Tilden, because they usually beat him and won slams on clay and grass. Tilden never won a clay slam, except perhaps the one French Pro title he won. As great a player as Hoad was, at times, he never dominated on the Pro Tour usually losing to Rosewall when he did reach the finals.

In reality, there is NO ONE GOAT! There is, IMO, a group of super elite players throughout tennis history. The obvious Super Elites are in no particular order: Laver, Rosewall, Federer, Gonzalez, and Sampras. Tier 2: Nadal, Borg, Tilden Perry,Cochet, Lacoste, Connors, McEnroe and Agassi. Tier 3: Edberg, Becker, Djokovic and Hoad. I rank Cochet and Lacoste above Tilden, because they usually beat him and won slams on clay and grass. Tilden never won a clay slam, except perhaps the one French Pro title he won. As great a player as Hoad was, at times, he never dominated on the Pro Tour usually losing to Rosewall when he did reach the finals.

While I appreciate the effort that has gone into the new list and although it opens up valuable new perspectives, I have to say I much prefer the old list. The difference between them? The new one uses selected numbers to achieve a spurious objectivity, whereas the old one was based on judgment, weighting achievements on a case-by-case basis to take account of the many factors that made them more or less impressive. Gonzales is a perfectly good choice for No. 1, but I don't believe he in any meaningful sense won 20 slams or had 364 weeks at No. 1. You can say he was the best player in the world for longer than anybody else, and that is a big point in his favour, but you can't quantify precisely how many weeks at No. 1 he had in the absence of weekly rankings at the time, & his lengthy domination surely owes something to the fact that during it he played almost exclusively on an extremely fast indoor surface that was tailor-made for his game. How dominant would Nadal have been if 90% of his career had been on clay?

Getting kind of tired of quoting you, but this is pretty much how it is.

While I appreciate the effort that has gone into the new list and although it opens up valuable new perspectives, I have to say I much prefer the old list. The difference between them? The new one uses selected numbers to achieve a spurious objectivity, whereas the old one was based on judgment, weighting achievements on a case-by-case basis to take account of the many factors that made them more or less impressive.

that's a problem I'm very much used to as a professional statistician : even when we know for sure that there are many factors to take into account, some ones being very hard to quantify together with other ones which are more easily quantifiable, the people and the institutions demand from us a very well-defined and also quite easy method
... and if the method is more complicated they shout for "subjectivity"
... and if we don't take these other factors into account they also shout at our stats because of those misses That sounds funny but it isn't when one is really concerned by one's job actually (which I'm not anymore unfortunately)
... and also when noone ever allow statisticians to explain why they do like that, the interest or limits of the work, only allows non-professionals to shout

That's why yes, I prefer keeping such kinds or "rankings" just for myself because I will not be contested for that and I can take into account complicated things without having to answer questions about it and having to justify. I prefer doing that than giving results with a simple method which I know is just plainly wrong.

Of course with that kind of complicated methods the frontier between "complexity" and "subjectivity" may become thin, even with the best personal integrity (even though it still helps a lot ), and that's why it's already questionable when one does that for oneself, but it's still an effective way imo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sophocles

Gonzales is a perfectly good choice for No. 1, but ... his lengthy domination surely owes something to the fact that during it he played almost exclusively on an extremely fast indoor surface that was tailor-made for his game. How dominant would Nadal have been if 90% of his career had been on clay?

yes, that's clearly the main spot on Gonzales' resume and why Laver and Federer are widely considered as the best pretenders for the number 1 (between Laver and Federer the debate is very opened imo).

A solution for determining such things was brought to us a while ago in a separate thread. A user uploaded an Excel sheet where you can change much how much you think each kind of event is worth on the GOAT scale and it would sort players out for you. Maybe bump that thread or at least make a new discussion and have MTF decide what are the most logical values to award each type of event during both the pre-Open era and the Open era.

E: Either way, the number 1 ranking is too highly valued when determining such a GOAT list, especially since some players like Vilas won several slams and never reached the top of the ranking and since the point system has changed several times making it one of the less comparable stats. It should be factored in, but very minimally.

A solution for determining such things was brought to us a while ago in a separate thread. A user uploaded an Excel sheet where you can change much how much you think each kind of event is worth on the GOAT scale and it would sort players out for you. Maybe bump that thread or at least make a new discussion and have MTF decide what are the most logical values to award each type of event during both the pre-Open era and the Open era.

I doubt such kind of sheet could factor the idea that Laver and Federer could have played better in other eras than other players like Gonzales, Sampras or Nadal

or factor the fact that Davis cup was much more important in the past, that the Australian open importance changed, that open era slams and big pro events were not the same ...

it can be a tool to have fun but it will never be the definitive tool ... just like Johnny's new list

I doubt such kind of sheet could factor the idea that Laver and Federer could have played better in other eras than other players like Gonzales, Sampras or Nadal

or factor the fact that Davis cup was much more important in the past, that the Australian open importance changed, that open era slams and big pro events were not the same ...

it can be a tool to have fun but it will never be the definitive tool ... just like Johnny's new list

Obviously not but as is, such subjective factors are always going to get disagreed upon anyways.. I mean the whole premise of MTF is based on bias. His old list was just as subjective, despite many people agreeing with it. Still, it was heavily based on statistical comparisons which is tough enough as it is especially for those reasons you posed such as the Australian Open and Davis Cup differences, not to mention how often some players played doubles like McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, and Wilander, who were all very successful on the double's circuit and won several slam titles.

E: Either way, that sheet does allow one to objectively rank the achievements of all the GOAT contenders... so if you aren't in the mood for bias, baseless opinions, etc that sheet is the way to go. It just plainly gives you who is the most successful of all time. Which afterall, you can't really argue. Numbers are numbers.

Obviously not but as is, such subjective factors are always going to get disagreed upon anyways.. I mean the whole premise of MTF is based on bias. His old list was just as subjective, despite many people agreeing with it. Still, it was heavily based on statistical comparisons which is tough enough as it is especially for those reasons you posed such as the Australian Open and Davis Cup differences, not to mention how often some players played doubles like McEnroe, Connors, Edberg, and Wilander, who were all very successful on the double's circuit and won several slam titles.

E: Either way, that sheet does allow one to objectively rank the achievements of all the GOAT contenders... so if you aren't in the mood for bias, baseless opinions, etc that sheet is the way to go. It just plainly gives you who is the most successful of all time. Which afterall, you can't really argue. Numbers are numbers.

I agree with you.

That sheet was pretty good, except it needs update on Federer's stats.

hello,
I'm a new poster fan on this forum.
Well, this classement is no ridiculous at all. Gonzales n°1 is a probability, even if I class still Rod Laver over everybody. Here is my top 10 on a period 1948-2012 (I won't try to analyse before 1948, whereas amators and pros could compare each other. How hard is to admit Lacoste, Cochet, Vines and Tilden were above all these guys (or not) !

I think my different ranks from the original one come from my sensibility to consider not only slams but other tournaments like master cup or masters 1000, where the top champions were present. Lendl was amazingly regular between 1982 and 1987 in these other tournaments.